Howard Dean Hype

[RosaRL]

Howard Dean Hype: The Pro-War Views of an "Anti-War" Candidate

Revolutionary Worker #1225, January 18, 2004, posted at http://rwor.org

Millions of people simply can't stand George W. Bush. The mainstream media has been calling this "the hate factor." Lots of people think this White House is a scary and arrogant place, packed with corporate madmen who are screwing up the world. And they really think such people should be kept far away from power. And of course, they have good reasons for thinking that.

And many of these same folks have been furious at the "me too" Democratic Party establishment--which has done as little as possible to actually oppose the heavy moves of the Bush administration. And they are right here too.

After 9/11, after the White House declared endless war and permanent emergency, the Democratic Party (with very few exceptions) basically saluted and fell in line--sometimes mumbling a few feeble complaints. And this included most of today's Democratic Presidential contenders, including Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards and General Wesley Clark.

The Democrats in Congress voted heavily to give George Bush war powers to attack Iraq. They voted heavily for the Patriot Act that has torn huge holes in civil liberties within the U.S. They went along when the White House launched a predatory war based on a cascade of crude and flimsy lies.

Millions of people, including a huge chunk of the Democratic Party base, feel robbed of a way to speak out against everything Bush now represents.

This angry mood has give a huge boost to the campaign of Governor Howard Dean of Vermont, who is emerging as a front-runner on the eve of the coming New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses.

Dean's Record in Vermont
Politically, Dean has always been a conventional and rather conservative Democrat with some liberal stands on important social issues.

Dean comes from a prominent family of Wall Street stockbrokers (yes, the Deans in Dean-Witter). His administration in Vermont was known as "pro-business"--Green Party activists there list ways in which Dean supported new suburban and tourist-based "sprawl" in the Green Moun- tains. As governor, he was known for opposing environmental regulations on issues like mining and poultry mega-farms. He opposed the Kyoto Accords for limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Dean has been a strict "lock 'em up" politician who cut funding for public aid lawyers. He strongly supports the "war on drugs" and continued criminalization of drugs. He even opposes allowing marijuana use for medicinal purposes.

As governor, he supported the state law legalizing gay civil marriages in the face of a rightwing hysteria. Dean is a doctor who supports keeping the current legal status of abortion-with-restrictions. His opponents in both the Democratic and Republican parties are scrambling to uncover whether Dean ever, personally, helped women by performing abortions. (The fact that this is considered an automatic disqualification for office tells a lot about the power of reactionary politics in both of the official political parties.)

rest of article - http://rwor.org/a/1225/dean.htm

[Saint-Just]

I think the title is misleading. Although many members of the Democrat Party are in favour of the war on Iraq, Howard Dean is not.

I think people would still be wise to vote for this candidate.

[RosaRL]

Actually, its not mislading at all - the acrticle continues and goes into it. I just did not post the whole thing. Here is part of it that deals with the issue of the war-

Dean on How to Win the War He Doesn't Like

On the campaign trail, Howard Dean denounces George W. Bush for the way Bush launched war against Iraq. Dean points out that Bush and his circle lied, crudely, to justify this war. And Dean points out that the war is not going well. And these criticisms have helped Dean leapfrog over the other Democrats.

But a close look shows that Dean denounces the way this war was planned and launched--but not the war itself. Senator John Kerry (a Dean rival) has recently been reminding the world that on October 6, 2002, Dean endorsed the Biden-Lugar Senate proposal granting Bush war powers to attack Iraq. (This is not the proposal that was ultimately passed and which Kerry voted for.)

In a typical speech Dean now says (Dec. 15, 2003),

"The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost. An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam's ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk."

Now Dean continually calls for continuing this war to victory over any resistance.

On July 2, National Public Radio's Bob Edwards asked Dean: "What would you be doing differently in postwar Iraq?"

Howard Dean answered:

"Now that we're there we can't leave. We cannot allow chaos or a fundamentalist regime in Iraq because it could be fertile ground for al Qaida. First thing I would do is bring in 40 to 50,000 other troops. I'd look to Arab countries, Islamic countries who are our allies, NATO, the United Nations. General Shinseki, before we went in, said that we did not have enough troops. The administration ignored that advice. It turned out to be true. It was a bad thing the administration ignored their own military expertise. We need those troops. We're not keeping order in Iraq. And it seems to me that what we need is some expertise from people who know how to police countries that are in some chaos and who understand how to administer and build the institutions of democracy. We're going to be there for a long time in Iraq. We can't leave."

Dean repeatedly says "Our troops need to come home" but adds "We can't pull out responsibly."

This means Dean's "exit strategy" is essentially the same as the one advocated by President Bush or General Wesley Clark: replace some of the U.S. troops by Iraqi and allies' troops under U.S. command. And since no else one is expected send troops to fight a losing war--this approach inevitably means using U.S. troops first to crush the Iraqi resistance to occupation.

Dean's plan for Iraq is to dig in for a long time, send in more troops, defeat the Iraqi resistance, strengthen the U.S. occupation, and impose a pro-U.S. government.

This is a stand that says launching the war was a mistake for U.S. imperial interests, but that those same interests now demand staying and winning the war.

This is not an anti-war stand. It is a pro-war stand--even if it comes along with angry and mocking denunciations of Bush.

[LSD]

Yah....it's called politics.


Most Americans support the war.

Dean wants to be supported by most Americans

Dean supports the war.

[SonofRage]

uhh, Dean doesn't support the war. Furthermore, the nation is pretty evenly divided on the issue for war and the opinion polls reflect this fact.

[Sabocat]

This quote tags Dean and the rest of them quite nicely.



"Is there anything more pitiable and futile—and politically hazardous—than a liberal’s denunciations of a reactionary social process that he or she has no intention of combating?"

David Walsh
wsws.org

[RosaRL]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 02:23 PM
uhh, Dean doesn't support the war. Furthermore, the nation is pretty evenly divided on the issue for war and the opinion polls reflect this fact.
Excuse me? Dean doesnt support the war? then tell me what this quote means -

"Now that we're there we can't leave. We cannot allow chaos or a fundamentalist regime in Iraq because it could be fertile ground for al Qaida. First thing I would do is bring in 40 to 50,000 other troops. I'd look to Arab countries, Islamic countries who are our allies, NATO, the United Nations. General Shinseki, before we went in, said that we did not have enough troops. The administration ignored that advice. It turned out to be true. It was a bad thing the administration ignored their own military expertise. We need those troops. We're not keeping order in Iraq. And it seems to me that what we need is some expertise from people who know how to police countries that are in some chaos and who understand how to administer and build the institutions of democracy. We're going to be there for a long time in Iraq. We can't leave."

ok now - 'we're going to be there for a long time in Iraq. We can't leave." does not at all sound like 'I oppose the war, pull out the troops.' (which he has not said by the way)

[Sabocat]

Interesting article....

The anti-Dean campaign is even more remarkable considering the former Vermont governor’s own record and political views. A self-described “fiscal conservative” and a product of a wealthy New York family, Dean represents no threat to vested economic interests in America. The Wall Street Journal, which should know, commented recently that Dean “remains a child of Wall Street—with closer ties there than any top Democratic contender since John and Robert Kennedy.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/.../dems-j14.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/dems-j14.shtml)

[Saint-Just]

Sorry RosaRL, I missed the link to the rest of the article. It is a great article and very interesting and certainly the title is absolutely correct.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 09:17 AM
Excuse me? Dean doesnt support the war? then tell me what this quote means -

"Now that we're there we can't leave. We cannot allow chaos or a fundamentalist regime in Iraq because it could be fertile ground for al Qaida. First thing I would do is bring in 40 to 50,000 other troops. I'd look to Arab countries, Islamic countries who are our allies, NATO, the United Nations. General Shinseki, before we went in, said that we did not have enough troops. The administration ignored that advice. It turned out to be true. It was a bad thing the administration ignored their own military expertise. We need those troops. We're not keeping order in Iraq. And it seems to me that what we need is some expertise from people who know how to police countries that are in some chaos and who understand how to administer and build the institutions of democracy. We're going to be there for a long time in Iraq. We can't leave."

ok now - 'we're going to be there for a long time in Iraq. We can't leave." does not at all sound like 'I oppose the war, pull out the troops.' (which he has not said by the way)
Honestly, as much as I opposed this war, I believe that it would be extremely foolish to just pack up and leave. We have to recognize that we fucked up Iraq worse than it already was and have created a power vacuum. Saddam had such tight control over that country, there is just no form of leadership ready to calm things down there. Things would get worse if the international community abandoned Iraq.


The international community needs to help the Iraqi people rebuilt. Frankly, I find the notion that supporting an international peace-keeping coalition to help the Iraqis rebuild is somehow racist or a new version of "the white man's burden" ridiculous (this is a position the ISO has taken for example).

[BOZG]

I believe that it would be extremely foolish to just pack up and leave. We have to recognize that we fucked up Iraq worse than it already was and have created a power vacuum. Saddam had such tight control over that country, there is just no form of leadership ready to calm things down there. Things would get worse if the international community abandoned Iraq.



The situation is getting worse with the "international community" in Iraq. Things will never calm down there as long as the US/UK and other partners continue the carving and raping of Iraq. Saddam Hussein managed to partially restore the Iraqi infrastructure after the first Gulf War in 3 months with crippling sanctions, the US has still not restored even power in Iraq. Iraq can be rebuilt without hundreds of thousands of troops and an imperial government dominating the country. As for rebuilding, how exactly can anyone actually rebuild with a soldier's gun to the back of their heads constantly as they work???

[SonofRage]

Without an international presence, Iraq will plunge into civil war. Instead of them not being able to work because of a "soldier's gun to the back of their heads," they won't be able to work because they will be too busy fighting in another war.

[LSD]

Without an international presence, Iraq will plunge into civil war. Instead of them not being able to work because of a "soldier's gun to the back of their heads," they won't be able to work because they will be too busy fighting in another war.


As tragic as it is, that's pretty much inevitable at this time.

The US is going to pull out of Iraq eventually, and whatever government they put in place will never be strong enough to resist the competing interests across the country.

Most wars of independence are followed by civil wars, in this instance not only is the country divided, but the goverment was imposed from without. If anything is a breeding ground for civil war.....

[SonofRage]

sadly, you're probably right.

[RosaRL]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 07:30 PM
Without an international presence, Iraq will plunge into civil war. Instead of them not being able to work because of a "soldier's gun to the back of their heads," they won't be able to work because they will be too busy fighting in another war.
First 'we' did not do this, this is not the work of the international prolitariat any more than the nazi invasions were. Should we look back and say 'oops' since the germans invaded they needed to stay? These are genocidal forces carring out the slaughter of the iraqi people.

What is wrong with a civil war anway?

I dont value workers being at their post over mass uprising, and I feel that the people of iraq would be much better off without the us terror around every street corner.

And these 'international peacekeeping forces' are no different - you cant just cover over oppression with the word 'international'. They are police forces backed by several imperialist nations instead of just one.

[RosaRL]

I also wanted to raise this for discussion. At the very end of the article there is an important question posed. Its something to think about.


A question: What would it mean--to the growth of a powerful resistance movement in the months ahead--if the energies and resources of antiwar forces get subordinated to a Democratic electoral program that is so fundamentally pro-war and pro-imperialist?

What is everyone's thoughts on that?

[yes i am arab]

the idea of thousands of iraqis dying in a pointless civil war is horrible, no doubt. but you cant have true liberty from an imperialist government that supports the passing of something like the "Patriot" Act...in its own country. The US wants nothing more than what i have said before, money, power, and whenever most convinient...to help out the corrupt Zionists in israel.....which is the whole reason for going to Iraq by the way...